The UK Government's proposals for the part-privatisation of our National Air Traffic Services (NATS) have had a rollercoaster ride. The last Government was determined to see management of Britain's airspace move into private hands but the (then) Opposition appeared to be against.

However, that former Opposition, now the Government of the day, is as committed to privatisation as its predecessors and introduced its proposals into Parliament via the Transport Bill in December 1999. The plan is to sell a 46% stake to a "strategic partner", retain a 49% interest for the public sector and a 5% share for the employees.

Despite Parliamentary criticism of its proposals by the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs Committee in February this year, work continues apace with consultations on the Operating Licence and the proposed charges framework.

The UK Government's arguments in favour of the part-privatisation are well rehearsed; enhancement of safety through separation of the regulator from service provider, the maintenance of NATS‚ contribution to national security, access to necessary project and management expertise and adequate funding for investment. Also cited are comm-ercial freedom for business develop-ment, the introduction of incentive based regulation, value for money, capital investment without public sector borrowing, private sector risk and accountability to Government.

The argument in favour of capital investment has to be the most compelling. UK airspace users are well aware of the need for new investment in infrastructure and the worrying delays in bringing the New En-Route Centre (NERC) into operation have made that need even more visible. Recent technical hitches at the London Air Traffic Control Centre (LATCC) caused a weekend of delays and further underscored the need for investment.

So how will the Government's plans for part-privatisation of NATS affect those of us in the business aviation community? There are several worrying questions to be asked. Will business aviation retain its existing levels of access to UK controlled airspace? What will happen to charges and will business aviation be unfairly penalised? We all remember the battle over weight-related charges in Europe.

GAMTA has lobbied at all levels in Parliament, Government, the Civil Aviation Authority and NATS itself to try and enshrine the principles of non-discriminatory access and affordable charges into the proc-edures for the part-privatisation. There is a non-discriminatory statement in the draft NATS Operating Licence but it is so loose that you could drive a very large coach and horses (and probably a very large business jet) through the clause without trouble. The charges argument is yet to be settled but the principle to be used is Retail Price Index less an ŒX‚ factor. This, in essence, is the same system as that used for the privatised BAA London Airports.

The BAA London Airports situation raises a very interesting comparison. What happened to business aviation access to Heathrow and Gatwick in the wake of their privatisation? Access to Heathrow alone has reduced from 21,000 business aviation movements in 1989 to well under 5,000 last year. If the BAA example is anything to go by, then we in the business aviation community have much to fear.

Within the past few weeks, the deadline for bids by potential strategic partners has passed. One of the contenders is the Airline Group, a consortium of eight airlines. A well known figure in the airline industry (and Airline Group member) was heard to say on Radio 4's "Today" programme that part-privatisation would be good news for the airlines - no mention of other users, such as business aviation.

Perhaps the most poignant issue is that of safety. The Government contends that safety will be enhanced even above the present excellent record by separating the service provider (NATS) from the regulator (CAA). But this separation has already happened to a large extent. NATS Ltd was separated from the CAA in all but ownership a while ago. Furthermore, the tragic events of the not too distant past in the railways industry have heightened public awareness of safety issues in privatised transport modes. We need to be very much assured as to how safety will be addressed under a privatised NATS with shareholder pressure present. Should we be looking at the NavCanada Model with its non-share capital corporation structure?

GAMTA's original position was one of neutrality on the principle of part-privatisation but nevertheless one of active concern on the issues of safety, non-discriminatory access and affordability of charges. As the days move on and we reflect on parallel situations in our and other industries, we are becoming increasingly worried. Business aviation makes a vital economic contribution to the United Kingdom (which is recognised by Government), with some very large and influential corporations actively using business aviation. If you are in that position and are becoming as concerned as we are, then join us in making Parliamen-tarians, Government, and the Authorities aware of our concerns.

Graham S Forbes, Chief executive, UK General Aviation Manufacturers and Traders Association